2Community Noise

This chapter gives a few examples of sources of noise in the community (broadly defined). Noise from aircraft operations is an important source of community noise, and three examples are given: a noise program at a well-established airport, an example of “growing pains” around a relatively new airport, and a situation where a change in policy created problems at relatively low levels of noise. Other examples include noise along the nation’s highways, noise from rail transportation, noise in urban areas (e.g., New York City), noise in national parks, noise from industrial facilities, and consumer product noise.

AIRCRAFT NOISE

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Levels Document” adopted 55 dB as the day-night average sound level (DNL) that would protect the public with an adequate margin of safety (EPA, 1974). However, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a noise-impacted area is that inside the 65-dB DNL contour. The noise level in a community near an airport is generally defined by contours of equal DNL around the airport. Impacted areas are generally eligible for sound mitigation with insulation of homes and schools using FAA funding.

According to a report to Congress by the FAA, there has been a 95 percent reduction in the number of people affected by aircraft noise in the past 35 years (FAA, 2004). In 2000 approximately 500,000 people were exposed to a DNL of more than 65 dB and approximately 5 million people were exposed to a DNL of 55 dB.

Although the extent of exposure to aircraft noise has been greatly reduced, the 1974 EPA report stated that “aircraft noise is the single most significant local objection to airport expansion and construction.” Some of the problems around the nation’s airports are described below.

O’Hare International Airport

The O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) works in the Chicago metropolitan area on problems regarding noise levels at O’Hare International Airport. ONCC considers and recommends operational programs to reduce aircraft noise impacts, evaluates reports from the Airport Noise Monitoring System, and works on noise abatement issues with air traffic controllers, FAA representatives, airline pilots, and community leaders. The ONCC issues a monthly report that contains information about runway usage, complaints, and noise levels at 37 different locations in the communities around the airport. The reports are linked to the ONCC home page (http://www.oharenoise.org).

ONCC has tracked phone call complaints about aircraft noise though its hotline since 1997, and its efforts have resulted in a reduction of calls from 25,773 in 1998 to 3,067 in 2004 (Mulder, 2005).1 More recent data show that calls in 2005, 2006, and 2007 numbered 1,958, 1,362, and 1,248, respectively. More information about the activities of ONCC can be found on the commission’s homepage and in Mulder (2005). ONCC also monitors the FAA’s Residential Sound Insulation Program for communities around O’Hare. For a bibliography on noise issues around airports, see http://airportnoiselaw.org/biblio.html.

Denver International Airport

In 1997, 22 residents living near Denver International Airport (DIA) filed suit against the city of Denver for allowing what they claimed was excessive noise. The residents, who lived 2 to 6 miles from the airport, alleged that “high levels

1

Mulder, A.J. Community Noise around Airports. Presentation at the NAE Workshop on Technology for a Quieter America, Washington, DC, September 13–15, 2005.

Citation Manager

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 11
2
Community Noise
O’Hare International Airport
This chapter gives a few examples of sources of noise in
the community (broadly defined). Noise from aircraft opera-
The O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC)
tions is an important source of community noise, and three
works in the Chicago metropolitan area on problems re-
examples are given: a noise program at a well-established
garding noise levels at O’Hare International Airport. ONCC
airport, an example of “growing pains” around a relatively
considers and recommends operational programs to reduce
new airport, and a situation where a change in policy created
aircraft noise impacts, evaluates reports from the Airport
problems at relatively low levels of noise. Other examples
Noise Monitoring System, and works on noise abatement
include noise along the nation’s highways, noise from rail
issues with air traffic controllers, FAA representatives,
transportation, noise in urban areas (e.g., New York City),
airline pilots, and community leaders. The ONCC issues a
noise in national parks, noise from industrial facilities, and
monthly report that contains information about runway us-
consumer product noise.
age, complaints, and noise levels at 37 different locations in
the communities around the airport. The reports are linked to
AIRCRAFT NOISE the ONCC home page (http://www.oharenoise.org).
ONCC has tracked phone call complaints about aircraft
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Levels
noise though its hotline since 1997, and its efforts have re-
Document” adopted 55 dB as the day-night average sound
sulted in a reduction of calls from 25,773 in 1998 to 3,067
level (DNL) that would protect the public with an adequate
in 2004 (Mulder, 2005).1 More recent data show that calls
margin of safety (EPA, 1974). However, according to the
in 2005, 2006, and 2007 numbered 1,958, 1,362, and 1,248,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a noise-impacted
respectively. More information about the activities of ONCC
area is that inside the 65-dB DNL contour. The noise level in
can be found on the commission’s homepage and in Mulder
a community near an airport is generally defined by contours
(2005). ONCC also monitors the FAA’s Residential Sound
of equal DNL around the airport. Impacted areas are gener-
Insulation Program for communities around O’Hare. For
ally eligible for sound mitigation with insulation of homes
a bibliography on noise issues around airports, see http://
and schools using FAA funding.
airportnoiselaw.org/biblio.html.
According to a report to Congress by the FAA, there has
been a 95 percent reduction in the number of people affected
Denver International Airport
by aircraft noise in the past 35 years (FAA, 2004). In 2000
approximately 500,000 people were exposed to a DNL of
In 1997, 22 residents living near Denver International Air-
more than 65 dB and approximately 5 million people were
port (DIA) filed suit against the city of Denver for allowing
exposed to a DNL of 55 dB.
what they claimed was excessive noise. The residents, who
Although the extent of exposure to aircraft noise has been
lived 2 to 6 miles from the airport, alleged that “high levels
greatly reduced, the 1974 EPA report stated that “aircraft
noise is the single most significant local objection to airport 1 Mulder, A.J. Community Noise around Airports. Presentation at the
expansion and construction.” Some of the problems around NAE Workshop on Technology for a Quieter America, Washington, DC,
the nation’s airports are described below. September 13–15, 2005.

OCR for page 11
TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA
of noise, pollution, and vibrations on plaintiffs’ property” of railway noise (see Chapter 5). A reasonable estimate is that
devalued their homes (Dener Post, 1997). 10 million people are affected by railway noise, including 6.5
In 2005 the developer of a $1.5 billion project called High million by train horns at rail/highway crossings.
Point near DIA planned to build the first of 3,000 homes The current solution to specific vehicle noise emission
about 2.5 miles from the end of a planned runway, making problems on highways is to construct noise barriers—solid
future noise complaints almost inevitable ( Dener Post, obstructions built between a highway and nearby homes.
2005). Buyers were warned they would be moving into an Effective barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dB,
area under aircraft flight paths, but demand for the homes cutting the loudness of traffic noise approximately in half
was expected to be high. To protect buyers, homes were (10 dB) for people who live in close proximity to the barrier.
built with triple-pane windows, extra insulation, and central A barrier can be a mound of earth along the side of the road
air conditioning. (an earth berm), a relatively high vertical wall, or an earth
A report in 2005 prepared by DIA’s noise consultants berm combined with a shorter vertical wall above. Earth
showed that a fully constructed airport would put a noise berms can be attractively landscaped but require large land
limit line that would serve as a barrier to residential devel- areas at the base on both sides of the barrier configuration.
opment right through the High Point project (Dener Post, Walls are limited to about 8 meters in height and can be
2005). The Denver City Council was concerned that occu- made of wood, stucco, concrete, masonry, metal, or other
pants of the 3,000 homes in High Point might exert enough materials.
political pressure to keep the airport from being completed There are no Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
as envisioned. requirements for the type of material used in the construction
More recently, the Denver International Airport Partner- of noise barriers. Materials are chosen by the state highway
ship has followed other airports (such as Washington Dulles administration but must meet FHWA specifications in terms
International Airport) in providing guidelines for prospective of rigidity and density. Whatever material is chosen must be
homeowners about future development at the airport to head rigid enough and of sufficient density to provide a transmis-
off potential problems (Dener Post, 2006). When DIA is sion reduction of 10 dB compared with the noise diffracted
fully built, it could expand from handling 43 million passen- over the top of the barrier.
gers in 2005 to more than 120 million passengers annually. FHWA uses the following additional criteria for determin-
In 2006 about 320,000 people lived within 15 miles of ing the feasibility of noise barriers: a barrier must be high
the airport, and by 2030 the same zone is expected to have enough and long enough to block the view of the road; noise
more than 500,000 people, according to the Denver Regional barriers do very little good for homes on a hillside overlook-
Council of Governments (Dener Post, 2006). Contracts for ing a road or for buildings that rise above the barrier; a noise
homes near the airport include a legal disclosure that buyers barrier can achieve a 5-dB noise reduction when it is tall
must sign, and some include easements for overhead traffic, enough to break the line of sight from the highway, and it
precluding residents from suing because of aircraft noise. can achieve an additional 1.5 dB of noise reduction for every
meter of height above the line of sight (with a maximum the-
oretical total reduction of 20 dB). FHWA’s rule of thumb is
East Coast Plan
that a barrier should extend four times as far in each direction
The “East Coast Plan” developed by the FAA in 1987 as the distance from the receiver to the barrier. Disruptions in
to reduce flight delays changed flight paths across southern noise walls for driveways or street intersections destroy their
New Jersey and dispersed them over a larger area of the state. effectiveness. Moreover, in some areas, where homes are far
The plan affected small communities that had complained, apart, the cost of a barrier may be prohibitive.
not about high levels of noise but about the presence of a The construction of noise barriers has always been a coop-
few aircraft where none had been previously. This is a good erative effort between state departments of transportation and
example of communities finding low levels of noise objec- FHWA, and states have a great deal of flexibility in designing
tionable, when even lower levels existed before a change and building noise barriers. Some states have built many noise
in policy. barriers, and some have built none. Through the end of 2004,
45 state departments of transportation and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico had constructed more than 2,205 linear miles
SuRFACE TRANSPORTATION NOISE
of barriers at a cost of more than $2.6 billion ($3.4 billion in
Corbisier (2003) states that “according to the most recent 2004 dollars). Five states and the District of Columbia have
data available from 1987, noise from highway traffic affects not constructed any noise barriers (FHWA, 2009).
more than 18 million people in the United States.” This il- Noise barriers tend to provide relief for a relatively small
lustrates both the extent of highway traffic noise and the fact number of people in a given area, but the noise reductions are
that it has been many years since a systematic study of such probably greater than those that could be achieved with mod-
noise has been done. It is more difficult to assess the impact ern pavement technology. However, the number of people

OCR for page 11
COMMUNITY NOISE
who could potentially get relief from improvements in road effect in 2007, New York City is often used as an example
surfaces is probably greater than the number of people who of the problems associated with dealing with noise in an
get relief from barriers. urban area. The first 10 noise sources in New York City
FHWA currently does not recognize porous road surfaces that bother residents were found by Bronzaft and Van Ryzin
as a solution to the highway noise problem; however, the (2007) to be:
agency does sponsor Quiet Pavement Pilot Programs to
investigate their feasibility (Ferroni, 2007).2 The costs and • car alarms
benefits of porous road surfaces are discussed in Chapter 7. • honking horns
• car stereos or boom cars
• rowdy passersby or people hanging out
CONSTRuCTION NOISE
• neighbors’ activity or voices
Noise from construction equipment has been a problem, • highway or street traffic
especially in urban areas, for many years. Typical noise • sirens from police cars, fire trucks, etc.
sources include jack hammers, compressors, pile drivers, • neighbors’ music, TV, or radio
excavators, electric generators, and various types of con- • motorcycles
struction vehicles. Planning for noise control must start with • construction or repair work
planning for the project itself, and mitigation techniques
include noise reduction at the source, construction of tem- It is difficult to describe many of these sources in terms
porary noise barriers, and restriction of operating hours. The of an environmental noise metric such as day-night average
Federal Highway Administration has produced the Con- sound level. Consequently, the extent of noise impact is as-
struction Noise Handbook (FHWA, 2006), which identifies sessed in terms of the number of complaints received.
many of the problems with construction noise. One recent On August 17, 2005, Mayor Michael Bloomberg called a
example of control of construction noise is work done in press conference to discuss the city’s noise code. He said that
connection with the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston between June 2004 and August 2005 the city’s government
(Thalheimer, 2000, 2001). A second example is the recent services hotline received 410,000 noise complaints, mak-
New York City noise code described in the section below on ing noise the number one complaint to the hotline. Online
urban noise. The code contains many limits on construction surveys conducted in collaboration with the Council on the
noise. The regulations have been described by Thalheimer Environment of New York City have been used to assess
and Shamoon (2007). both the sources of urban noise and the number of complaints
(Bronzaft and Van Ryzin, 2007). Surveys have focused on
behavioral and emotional consequences of neighborhood
RAIL NOISE
noise, complaints about noise, specific sources of noise in
Rail systems are a growing component of the transpor- communities, and general perceptions of neighborhood noise
tation system in the United States because of their dem- (Bronzaft and Van Ryzin, 2004, 2006). The surveys have
onstrated efficiency in energy use for transporting people shown that New Yorkers are bothered more frequently by
and goods. As oil becomes more expensive and interest in noise and are more likely to lodge a complaint about it than
green economies increases, rail systems can be expected to respondents to similar surveys in other parts of the country
expand. Commuters are opting for rail transit in urban areas, (Bronzaft and Van Ryzin, 2004).
resulting in higher ridership each year. Amtrak’s portion of The top noise sources for New Yorkers and people nation-
intercity trips is growing in both the East Coast and the West wide that were most associated with behavioral and emotional
Coast corridors. Freight railroads, which have been running consequences are rowdy passersby, neighbors’ activities
at capacity, carry bulk cargo more efficiently than any other or voices, car stereos, car horns, motorcycles, and back-up
transportation mode. As rail transportation increases, an beeps. NYC residents also report more frequent behavioral
increase in noise exposure in and around transit and railroad and emotional consequences from noise than respondents
facilities can be expected. nationwide; they are more likely to close their windows,
have trouble relaxing, lose sleep, and have trouble reading.
Similarly, New Yorkers are more likely to feel annoyed, angry,
NOISE IN uRBAN AREAS
helpless, upset, and tired because of community noise. “These
Because there have been several recent surveys of noise findings should demonstrate to public officials that New
in New York City, and because a new noise code went into Yorkers cannot find the peace and quiet in their homes that
they deserve” (Bronzaft and Van Ryzin, 2006).
In response to NYC noise issues, Mayor Bloomberg
2 Ferroni, M. FHWA Tire/Pavement Noise Policy and Programs. Presenta-
asked the city’s Department of Environmental Protection
tion at the Workshop on Cost-Benefit Analysis and Transportation Noise,
(DEP) to revise the noise code, and on December 29, 2005,
Washington, DC, February 22, 2007.

OCR for page 11
4 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA
he signed a new version into law, which became effective on users of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, air tours)
July 1, 2007. The city’s DEP, which is responsible for noise and those who seek quiet and solitude (hikers, row boaters,
regulation, has developed a brochure that provides a brief campers). Nonnatural sounds also may conflict with the
overview of the new code. (For the full text, see http://www. legislative mandates that established the park or with NPS
nyc.go/html/dep/pdf/law0.pdf.) management objectives of protecting natural sounds as a
Important methods in the new code for controlling urban specific park resource. The NPS maintains a website devoted
noise include specification of sound pressure level limits to natural sounds with a link to sources of human sounds
at certain distances for sources such as construction equip- (NPS, 2009).
ment, limits on operating hours, limits on noise from some Sources of intrusive noise include snowmobiles and other
sources that are “plainly audible” at a certain distance, and off-road vehicles, aircraft (including commercial aircraft, air
limits on some sources in terms of decibels above ambient tours, and private aircraft), and watercraft (including motor
noise. The metric day-night average sound level is not used boats, personal watercraft, and other water vehicles). Aircraft
in the code. Bronzaft and Van Ryzin note that the passage overflights and their effects on national parks are discussed
of a noise code will not have the desired impact unless it is in a report to Congress (DOI, 1995).
supplemented by educational materials on the hazards of In some parks, noise from road traffic is an issue, par-
noise, noise protection, and protecting the rights of others to ticularly when the only access to quiet areas is by means
quiet (CENYC, 2009). They also recommended that the city of a motor vehicle; not everyone is capable of hiking or
council consider legislation that calls for the enforcement of skiing into naturally quiet areas. Thus, conflicts can arise
apartment leases guaranteeing residents the right to quiet and even among groups of park users who have the same
include discussions of floor coverings, slamming of doors, objectives—enjoyment of wilderness areas—but use differ-
and young children running around excessively. ent means of travel.
Although the day-night average sound level, DNL, is
widely used to quantify community response to noise—
NOISE IN QuIET ENVIRONMENTS
usually in terms of the average percentage of the population
Recreational noise has been the subject of three special likely to be highly annoyed—other factors must be con-
issues of Noise Control Engineering Journal (NCEJ, 1999). sidered in considering noise in naturally quiet areas. The
In an excellent article, Sutherland (1999) discusses how to overall goal might be described as protecting, maintaining,
measure, evaluate, and preserve naturally quiet areas. More or restoring soundscapes appropriate to the park setting.
recently, Miller (2003, 2008) has written about the effects of Park soundscapes may be not only natural but also cul-
transportation noise in recreational areas and problems with tural (e.g., the drumbeat of a sacred tribal dance) or historical
the metrics used to measure noise levels in quiet areas. (e.g., cannon fire at a Civil War battlefield). Decisions about
Rossman (2005)3 describes the Natural Sounds Program the appropriate soundscape for a given park area depend not
of the National Park Service (NPS) and lists the following only on visitor perception/satisfaction but also on judgments
issues that affect implementation of a noise policy in natu- by park management.
rally quiet areas: One way to assess visitors’ reactions to quiet spaces is
to query them by means of a survey about their degree of
• There is no recognized “legal” standard for ambient satisfaction with the environment. A scale of “completely
noise in national parks. satisfied” to “completely dissatisfied” is more likely to yield
• “Traditional” acoustic metrics are not adequate for valid results than questions about “annoyance.” A promising
measuring impacts on park “soundscape” resources. alternative measure is the visitor-reported degree of “interfer-
• Many parks are already “noisy.” ence with the appreciation of natural quiet and the sounds of
• Many sound sources originate outside park boundaries. nature” (DOI, 1995; Miller, 1999).
• Little information is available on the kinds of noise that Schomer has suggested an alternative; he argues that
disturb wildlife, and most sound data and models are sound-quality techniques, which are widely used in the
weighted for human hearing. automotive industry and by product manufacturers (see
Chapter 5), are more appropriate for measuring noise levels
Metrics used to measure noise levels in national parks in parklike settings (Schomer, 2009; Schomer et al., 2008).
have received much attention in the past few years, primar-
ily because of inherent conflicts among park visitors—those
NOISE FROM INDuSTRIAL FACILITIES
engaged in activities that produce nonnatural sounds (e.g.,
Industry and industry regulators need better guidelines
3 Rossman, R. NPS Natural Sounds Program. Presentation at the NAE and standards to ensure that industrial plants operate as good
Workshop on Technology for a Quieter America, Washington, DC, Sep-
tember 13–15, 2005.

OCR for page 11
COMMUNITY NOISE
acoustical neighbors (Wood, 2005).4 Uncertainty caused by of state and local noise regulations have been developed to
the lack of well-defined, quantitative standards is a signifi- address concerns about noise from wind turbines (Bastasch,
cant issue for companies planning and submitting plans for 2009; Barnes, 2007). Wind turbine research is ongoing at the
new industrial facilities. Significant delays caused by poorly National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Depart-
defined standards have affected the construction of oil refin- ment of Energy. The report Wind Turbine Sound and Health
eries, wind power farms, clean coal facilities, and nuclear Effects—An Expert Panel Reiew, prepared by a panel of
power plants. Standards should set criteria and guidelines scientific and medical professionals from several countries,
for low-frequency noise, tonal noise, and intermittent noise provides an assessment of plausible biological effects of
coming from, and within, new facilities; should define how exposure to wind turbine sound (Colby et al., 2009). There
equivalent noise levels should be used; and should establish is also a short discussion of wind turbine noise in a National
protocols for documenting predevelopment, baseline, ambi- Research Council report (NRC, 2007).
ent noise levels in the surrounding environment.
New noise guidelines are needed for electricity-generating
NOISE IN BuILDINgS
and transformer facilities and other industrial structures.
Databases of industrial noise, similar to existing databases There are many sources of noise in buildings—including
for cars, trucks, and airplanes, are needed to document in- noise from outside such as the transportation noise sources
dustrial sound power and sound radiation, mufflers, building described above; noise from heating, ventilating, and air-
elements, and barriers, among other building characteristics. conditioning systems; noise generated by equipment used
New noise modeling programs are also badly needed, as are by occupants, and noise generated by the occupants them-
improvements in noise control technologies (e.g., large axial selves. The section “Noise Control in Buildings” in Chap-
fans) to reduce operating noise and more rapid technology ter 5 describes current problems and future challenges. The
transfer from government research programs to industry. issues include noise in homes, noise in hospitals, and noise
in business environments. There is widespread dissatisfac-
tion with noise in buildings in which business is conducted.
WIND TuRBINE NOISE
Postoccupancy evaluations by the Center for the Built Envi-
Growing interest in renewable energy sources has led to ronment at the University of California at Berkeley (2007)
the design and installation of large modern wind turbines indicate that occupants are generally dissatisfied with noise
for electric power generation. European nations such as and sound privacy. It has also been shown that the move to
Germany, Denmark, and Spain have developed wind power design “green” buildings can further degrade the acousti-
generation, and there is concern in Europe about the noise cal environment (Muehleisen, 2009; Razavi, 2009). Issues
generated by these machines—as there is in the United States. include windows that open, low-height screens, natural
Three conferences on wind turbine noise have been held in ventilation systems, and lack of “green” sound absorptive
Europe, and a fourth is scheduled for 2011 (WTN2005, materials. Noise in hospitals and other buildings is covered
WTN2007, WTN2009, WTN2011). in Chapter 5.
There have been reports of adverse effects of noise in
the United States, particularly downwind of turbines close
NOISE FROM CONSuMER PRODuCTS
to communities. Low-level audible noise is generated and
sometimes modulates at the blade passage frequency of the Noise from consumer products can be a nuisance in the
turbines. Today’s large modern wind turbines with blades home, but it can be more than a nuisance when noisy prod-
rotating upwind of the tower are quieter than earlier wind ucts, such as lawnmowers and leaf blowers, are operated in
turbines with blades that rotated through the turbulent wake suburban and urban environments. Reducing product noise is
downwind of the tower. a significant factor in the market success of many consumer
One concern is the adequacy of A-frequency weighting products. In addition, some foreign suppliers have made
as a metric to assess the effect of noise on people. Another is significant inroads in U.S. markets by making less noise a
the fact that these turbines are sometimes located in remote distinguishing feature of their products. Some U.S. manufac-
areas or quiet communities where the background noise turers have also begun to take product sound seriously, but
level in the absence of ground-level wind can be very low. cost constraints frequently make it difficult for them to add
Thus, wind turbine noise is sometimes audible above the engineering modifications to produce quieter products.
background at sound pressure levels that in most cases would For some products, such as automobiles, sound is very
be considered to have a minimal effect on people. A variety important, and companies spend heavily to make their cars
quiet and pleasant. Automobile companies have large staffs
4Wood, E. Community Noise from New Industrial Plants. Presentation and good facilities for sound research and development, but
at the NAE Workshop on Technology for a Quieter America, Washington, most appliance/consumer products companies do not. One
DC, September 13–15, 2005.

OCR for page 11
6 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA
reason for this is that appliances, health care, and personal CENYC (Council on the Environment of New York City). 2009. Noise.
Available online at http://www.cenyc.org/greenlife/noise.
care products are subject to much more frequent changes
Colby, W.D. 2009. Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects—An Expert
than cars, and consumers regularly replace older products Panel Review. American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian
or choose to buy new ones because of a desired feature. The Wind Energy Association. Available online at http://www.awea.org/
effect of frequent changes has been to compress develop- newsroom/releases/AWEA_CanWEA_SoundWhitePaper_--0.pdf.
ment schedules and limit the transfer of improved noise Corbisier, C. 2003. Living with noise. Public Roads 67(1). Available online
at http://www.tfhrc.go/pubrds/0jul/06.htm.
suppression (e.g., a quieter way to support a small motor)
Denver Post. 1997. Residents sue Denver Airport and Adams County over
to new models. noise. June 7.
Denver Post. 2005. Homes jump DIA noise boundary. April 8.
Denver Post. 2006. Denver airport partnership prepares guides for new
SuMMARy homebuyers. April 17.
DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 1995. Report on Effects of Aircraft
Community and building noise is too broad a topic to be
Overflights on the National Park System. Washington, DC: National
described in a single chapter. Nevertheless, a few examples Park Service. Available online at www.nonoise.org/library/npreport/
can be given, organized according to the source of noise— intro.htm.
and that is the approach used in this chapter. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels
Noise around the nation’s airports has received a great of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare
with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA Report 550/9-74-004. Wash-
deal of attention; still, many problems remain to be solved.
ington, DC: Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Available online
Noise barriers have been the solution of choice at many loca- at www.nonoise.org/library/leels74/leels74.htm.
tions along the nation’s highways, but (as will be seen in later FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2004. Aviation and the Environ-
chapters) progress is being made to reduce the noise gener- ment. Available online at http://www.faa.go/library/reports/media/
ated by the interaction between tires and the road surface. congrept_aiation_enirn.pdf.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. Construction Noise
Environmental, construction, and building noise is an
Handbook. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.go/enironment/
increasingly widespread problem in densely populated urban noise/handbook/index.htm.
areas, and the situation in New York City exemplifies that. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2009. Summary of Noise Barri -
As the rail network expands in the United States, rail noise ers Constructed by December 31, 2004. Available online at http://www.
will become more of an issue than it is today. fhwa.dot.go/enironment/noise/barrier/sintro.htm.
Miller, N.P. 1999. Mitigating the Effects of Military Aircraft Overflights on
Finally, noise in quiet areas such as national parks is part
Recreational Users of Parks. AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2000-0034.
of the community noise issue—broadly defined—and is Miller, N.P. 2003. Transportation noise and recreational lands. Noise/
introduced here and emphasized in the following sections News International 11(1):9–21. Available online at h ttp://www.
of this report. noisenewsinternational.net/docs/miller-00.pdf.
Miller, N.P. 2008. U.S. national parks and management of park soundscapes:
A review. Applied Acoustics 69(2):77–92.
REFERENCES Muehleisen, R.T. 2009. Noise Problems and Opportunities in “Green
Buildings.” Presentation at the Second CAETS Forum on Worldwide
Barnes. J.D. 2007. A Variety of Wind Turbine Noise Regulations in the
Noise Sources, Ottawa, Canada, August 25, 2009. Available online at
United States—2007. Proceedings of the Second International Meeting
http://www.noisenewsinternational.net/docs/caets-00.
on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyon, France, September 20–21.
NCEJ (Noise Control Engineering Journal). 1999. 47 (3–4), Special
Bastasch, M. 2009. Oregon’s Wind Turbine Noise Regulations. Proceedings
Issues.
of the Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Aalborg,
NPS (National Park Service). 2009. Sources of Human-Caused Sounds in
Denmark, June 17–19.
National Parks. Available online at http://www.nature.nps.go/natural
Bronzaft, A., and G. Van Ryzin. 2004. Neighborhood Noise and Its Conse -
sounds/sources/.
quences: A Survey in Collaboration with the Council on the Environ-
NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Environmental Impact of
ment of New York City. Special Report #4. New York: Council on the
Wind Turbine Noise. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Environment. Available online at http://www.cenyc.org/files/cenyc/
Available online at h ttp://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_
noisesurey04.pdf.
id=&page=60.
Bronzaft, A., and G.Van Ryzin. 2006. Neighborhood Noise and Its Conse-
Razavi, Z. 2009. Acoustical Improvements with Natural Air Ventilations
quences: A Survey in Collaboration with the Council on the Environ-
in the Liu Institute at the University of British Columbia. Proceedings
ment of New York City. Special Report #9. New York: Council on the
of INTER-NOISE 2009. The 2009 International Congress on Noise
Environment. Available online at http://www.cenyc.org/files/cenyc/
Control Engineering, Ottawa, Canada, August 23–26 Available online
noisesurey06.pdf.
at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm.
Bronzaft, A., and G. Van Ryzin. 2007. Neighborhood Noise and Its Conse -
Schomer, P.D. 2009. Visitor perception of park soundscapes: A research
quences: Implications for Tracking Effectiveness of the NYC Revised
plan. Noise/News International 17(2):51–56. Available online at http://
Noise Code. Special Report #14. New York: Council on the Environ -
www.noisenewsinternational.net.
ment. Available online at http://www.noiseoff.org/media/cenyc.noise.
Schomer, P.D., G.F. Stanley, and W. Chang. 2008. Visitor Perception of
report.4.pdf.
Park Soundscapes: A Research Plan. Proceedings of INTER-NOISE
Center for the Built Environment, University of California at Berkeley
08, The 2008 International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control
(2007). Acoustical Analysis in Office Environments Using POE (Post
Engineering, Shanghai, China, October 26–29. Available online at http://
Occupancy Evaluation) Surveys. Available online at http://www.cbe.
www.internoise008.org/ProceedingsforSale.htm or http://scitation.aip.
berkeley.edu/research/acoustic_poe.htm.
org/journals/doc/INCEDL-home/cp/.

OCR for page 11
7
COMMUNITY NOISE
Sutherland, L.C. 1999. Natural quiet: An endangered environment. How to Portland, Maine, October 29–31. Available online at http://www.
measure, evaluate, and preserve it. Noise Control Engineering Journal bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm.
47(3):82–86. WTN2005. First International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise, Berlin,
Thalheimer, E., and C. Shamoon. 2007. New York City’s new and im- Germany, October 17, 18. Available online at http://www.confweb.
proved construction noise regulation. Proceedings of NOISE-CON 07. org/wtn00.
The 2007 National Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Reno, WTN2007. Second International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyon,
Nevada, October 22–24. Available online at http://www.bookmasters. France, September 20–21. Available online at http://www.confweb.
com/marktplc/0076.htm. org/wtn007.
Thalheimer, E. 2000. Construction noise control program and mitigation WTN2009. Third International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise,
strategy at the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Noise Control Engineering Aalborg, Denmark, June 17–19. Available online at http://www.confweb.
Journal 48(5):157–165. org/wtn00.
Thalheimer, E. 2001. Proactive Construction Noise Control Policies De- WTN2011. Wind Turbine Noise 2011, Rome, Italy, April 12–14, 2011. An-
veloped for the Central Artery/Tunnel Projects. Proceedings of NOISE- nouncement online at http://www.windturbinenoise0.org.
CON 01, The 2001 National Conference on Noise Control Engineering,